Waziri v. Small

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waziri v. Small

276 A.D.2d 480, 713 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9913

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 2, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 480 (Waziri v. Small) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waziri v. Small, 276 A.D.2d 480, 713 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for [481]*481personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 22, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improperly granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiffs expert found that a Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the plaintiffs cervical spine performed on August 26, 1996, approximately five weeks after the subject accident, revealed a herniated disc at C6-C7. This raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for [481]*481personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated December 22, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improperly granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiffs expert found that a Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the plaintiffs cervical spine performed on August 26, 1996, approximately five weeks after the subject accident, revealed a herniated disc at C6-C7. This raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law (see, Chaplin v Taylor, 273 AD2d 188; Flanagan v Hoeg, 212 AD2d 756, 757). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 480, 713 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waziri-v-small-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack